alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 24.2

POWER OF ATTORNEY

(Annual Report on Form 10-K)

The undersigned, an officer and/or director of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., constitutes and appoints Nicholas Konidaris, Paul Oldham and Kerry Mustoe, and each
of them, his or her true and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts and things and execute in his or her name as an officer or director of the Company the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 28, 2009 and any and
all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and the undersigned does hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and agents
and each of them shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Any one of said attorneys or agents shall have, and may exercise, all powers conferred.

Dated: May 14, 2009.



/s/ RICHARD J. FAUBERTRichard J. Faubert
##### 



Exhibit 99.3

WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Paul F. Walsh, the Chief Executive Officer, of eFunds
Corporation (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, hereby
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                   
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) the Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2002 of the
Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|
| | (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.                                         

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

26
#### John James HARPER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27535.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 6, 1955.

No attorney on appeal, for. appellant.

Henry Wade,' Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for . the State. .

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 30 days in jail and,a fine of $100.00. : .. .

No statement of facts or bills of exception appear in the record.

The judgment herein recites that the jail term was probated.

In compliance with the holding in Gilderbloom v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 272 S.W. 2d 106, the judgment herein is reformed so as to eliminate the provision for probation and, as reformed, is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Marc Juliar, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Island Critical
Care, Corp.

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
     being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
     fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
     annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
     reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial information; and


<PAGE>


     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting.


Date: April 18, 2005               /s/ Marc Juliar
                                   -----------------------
                                   Marc Juliar
                                   Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1544 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1544

To extend Corridor N of the Appalachian development highway system from 
     its current northern terminus at Corridor M, near Ebensburg, 
 Pennsylvania, to Corridor T, near Salamanca, New York, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2011

  Mr. Critz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend Corridor N of the Appalachian development highway system from 
     its current northern terminus at Corridor M, near Ebensburg, 
 Pennsylvania, to Corridor T, near Salamanca, New York, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Corridor N Extension Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

    Section 14501(a) of title 40, United States Code, is amended in the 
second sentence by striking ``shall not'' and all that follows through 
the period at the end of that sentence and inserting the following: 
``shall not be more than 3,239 miles.''.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF ADDITION.

    (a) In General.--There is designated as an addition to Corridor N 
of the Appalachian development highway system, located in Maryland and 
Pennsylvania, a segment from Corridor M to Corridor T.
    (b) Extension and Development.--The addition to Corridor N 
described in subsection (a) shall--
            (1) extend approximately 149 miles; and
            (2) be developed as a multilane freeway, with interchanges 
        at appropriate crossroad locations.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23
                                                             ----------
                 CONSENT OF LAZAR, LEVINE & FELIX LLP

            We consent to the incorporation by reference of our
report dated January 6, 2005 (except for Note 15, the date of which
is January 14, 2005) and (June 3, 2005 as to the effects of the
restatement discussed in Note 4) with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and notes thereto of Touchstone Applied
Science Associates, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-
KSB) for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2004 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission into (i) the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (SEC File No. 333-27659), (ii)
the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-
424), (iii) the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 (SEC
File No. 333-75377), (iv) the Company's Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-110156), and (v) the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-110157).

LAZAR, LEVINE & FELIX LLP
New York, New York
June 13, 2005
Exhibit 32.1
Chief Executive and Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18U.S.C., SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002),  I, the  undersigned  Chief  Executive and
Financial Officer of Zkid Network Company, (the "Company"), hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company
for the period ended  December 31, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the
requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,  the financial  condition  and results of operation of the Company.  A
signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 has been
provided  to the  registrant  and will be retained  by it and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated May 27, 2005


                                            By: /s/ Donald Weisberg
                                               -----------------------
                                               Donald Weisberg
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit No. 15 

 

Awareness Letter from Independent Accountants 

 

April 28, 2004 

 

Armstrong Holdings, Inc. 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 

 

Re: Registration Statement No. 333-74501; 33-91890; 33-18996; 33-18997; 33-65768; 333-79093; 333-43872 

 

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the usetherein of our report dated April 28, 2004 related to our review of interim financial information of Armstrong Holdings, Inc. 

 

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), such report is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by anaccountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6439

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FRANKLYN EARL BANNERMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-105-N, CA-97-287-2)

Submitted: August 10, 1999 Decided: August 31, 1999

Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James J. Vergara, Jr., VERGARA & ASSOCIATES, Hopewell, Virginia;

Cheryl Johns Sturm, Westtown, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Laura

Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Franklyn Earl Bannerman seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Bannerman,

No. CR-90-105-N; CA-97-287-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 1999). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Alaska HAYES, Appellant, v. TEXAS GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 6941.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

Jan. 24, 1957.

*619Kenneth R. King, Tyler, for appellant.

Power, McDonald & Mell, Tyler, for appellee.

DAVIS, Justice.

This is a suit for workmen’s compensation insurance by Alaska Hayes, plaintiff-appellant, against defendant-appellee, Texas General Indemnity Company. Judgment was for defendant-appellee on a jury verdict, from which appellant has perfected his appeal, and brings forward one point of error which reads as follows:

> “The trial court erred in admitting in evidence defendant’s Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, at the trial of this cause before the jury.”

Appellant argues that the court erred in admitting these instruments (photostatic copies of some proceedings before the Industrial Accident Board) into evidence because they were not properly authenticated. The exhibits are from two separate proceedings before the Industrial Accident Board in which appellant was claimant. At the time the exhibits were offered, they were contained in complete certified transcripts of all the proceedings before the Board in each of the two cases, but were removed therefrom by order of the court after the transcript-with the certificate of the Secretary of the Board thereto attached had been exhibited to the trial court for his inspection, which proceedings under the record of this case was proper. The exhibits were certified copies and admissible. Article 8307, Sec. 8, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., and authorities thereunder collated. The point is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### Bennie TAYLOR et al., Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 15, 1965.

Bennie Taylor, Georgie Lynn, Johnny Lynn, all pro se.

Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., Joseph H. Eckert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for ap-pellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

The three appellants were convicted of storehouse breaking and each sentenced to two and one-half years in prison.

The first question raised is a procedural one. Appellants, who are not now represented by counsel, failed to take and perfect their appeal within the time limits prescribed by the Criminal Rules. In view of the very unusual circumstances in this particular case, we will not dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds.

*896The only claim of error on the merits is that the principal evidence introduced against appellants was obtained by an illegal search.

About 3:30 in the morning a service station was broken into and 26 cartons of cigarettes were stolen. This set off a burglar alarm and the owner of the station observed an automobile leaving his station in a northerly direction. The sheriff was immediately notified and set out in pursuit of this automobile. It was drizzling and the sheriff was able to follow the car tracks for some distance. He lost sight of the tracks but shortly observed appellants’ automobile pulling out from a side road. He followed this car for about a mile and then required it to stop. Upon shining his flashlight in the car, which was occupied by the three appellants, he saw on the back seat a pile of cigarettes and wrecking tools. Shortly thereafter appellants were arrested on a warrant.

In their briefs the parties discuss the question of whether the *discovery*of what were apparently stolen goods and burglary tools constituted an illegal search of the vehicle. The act of discovery gives us no trouble in the light of Reynolds v. Commonwealth, Ky., 273 S.W.2d 569, and Childers v. Commonwealth, Ky., 286 S.W.2d 369.

The real problem is whether *the*stopping of the car was illegal so that whatever was discovered thereafter constituted an illegal search.

If law enforcement officers have a bona fide reason for stopping a motor vehicle, the discovery of incriminating evidence in plain view may be shown in evidence against the accused. Commonwealth v. Robey, Ky., 337 S.W.2d 34, 87 A.L.R.2d 923; Clark v. Commonwealth, Ky., 388 S.W.2d 622. Here the officers knew a felony had been committed; they were following the tracks of an automobile identified as having left the scene; and at four o’clock in the morning, with no one else abroad, they had reason to believe that appellants’ car was the one involved. Under these circumstances they had a right to stop the car and they did not conduct an illegal search.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED IN THIS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR THE
YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1997,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                 $1,638,173
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                              $180,474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       $1,917,066
<PP&E>                                                   $810,136
<DEPRECIATION>                                           $655,090
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         $2,072,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    $462,417
<BONDS>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                               $1,126,640
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                               $483,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           $2,072,112
<SALES>                                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                0
<CGS>                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       $1,775,090
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      $(131,299)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       $(1,643,791)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                          $(1,643,791)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0



</TABLE>
#### Walter M. VAUGHN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28920.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 27, 1957.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal May 8, 1957.

*644No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Sam Cleveland, Dist. Atty., Stephenville, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

This purports to be a conviction for murder with malice with punishment assessed at five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record before us fails to reflect the sentence of the trial court, without which this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

On State’s Motion- to Reinstate Appeal

WOODLEY, Judge.

A supplemental transcript has been forwarded to this Court which contains the judgment upon the jury’s verdict assessing a term of five years, and a sentence ordering appellant’s confinement in the penitentiary for five years. The appeal is therefore reinstated.

No statement of facts accompanies the record and there are no bills of exception.

The sentence failed to apply the indeterminate sentence law. It will be reformed so as to order appellant’s confinement for a term of not less than two years nor more than five years.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 4.45

                             [PT TELKOM LETTERHEAD]



                                                          Jakarta, June 29, 2004


KAP Hans Tuanakotta Mustofa & Halim
(formerly KAP Hans Tuanakotta & Mustofa)
Registered Public Accountants
Wisma Antara 12th Floor
Jl. Medan Merdeka Selatan No.17
Jakarta 10110
Indonesia

Confidential

RE:   2001 AUDIT REPORT FOR
      PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA TBK. ("TELKOM")

Dear Sirs:

            Reference is made to your request for a limited indemnity in
accordance with the terms of the SEC No Action Letter (Price Waterhouse LLP,
October 3, 1995). In consideration of your consenting to the inclusion in
TELKOM's Annual Report on Form 20-F for 2003 ("2003 Form 20-F") of your audit
report on TELKOM's consolidated financial statements as of and the for the year
ended December 31, 2001 (the "Audit Report") and their filing with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission, TELKOM agrees to indemnify KAP Hans
Tuanakotta Mustofa & Halim ("HTM+H") for the payment of any and all legal costs
and expenses reasonably incurred by HTM+H in its successful defense of any legal
action or proceeding that arises as a result of the consent of HTM+H to the
inclusion of the Audit Report in the 2003 Form 20-F, provided however that the
foregoing indemnity shall be void and inoperative, and HTM+H agrees to
immediately reimburse TELKOM for all amounts paid by TELKOM under this
indemnity, if a court, after adjudication, determines that HTM+H is liable for
professional malpractice.

            For the purpose of this letter agreement, a "successful defense"
means a defense in which the defendant is neither decreed to have been culpable
nor pays any part of the plaintiff's damages as a result of judgment or
settlement.
<PAGE>
            This letter agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the State of New York without regard to its
conflicts of laws principles. If this letter agreement is satisfactory, please
sign a copy and return it to us.

                                    Yours faithfully,


                                    /s/ Kristiono

                                    --------------------------------
                                    Name: Kristiono
                                    Title: President Director
                                    for and on behalf of
                                    PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia Tbk.






Agreed to and acknowledged by:



/s/ Paul Capelle

----------------------------------
Name: Paul Capelle
Title: Deputy Managing Partner
for and on behalf of
KAP Hans Tuanakotta Mustofa & Halim,
a member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu




                                        2